Bharatram Vs. Abul Murad and Others

Bharatram vs Abul Murad and Others

Disposition Revision Allowed Court Chhattisgarh Decided Jan 05, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495961

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/495961
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: Mr. R.S. Garg, J.
Decided On: Jan 05, 2001
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 53/2000
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Revision Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 3. Number of authorities and the earlier judgment of this Court show that the amount of the interim compensation is always paid to the person so that he can run his life smoothly meet the expenses and is not required to beg from others though having good and sufficient amount in his Bank.

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Revision Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bharatram

Advocate Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Adv.

Respondent

Abul Murad and Others

Legal References

Reported In: 2002ACJ1405; 2001(1)MPHT17(CG)

Excerpt

- - 3. number of authorities and the earlier judgment of this court show that the amount of the interim compensation is always paid to the person so that he can run his life smoothly meet the expenses and is not required to beg from others though having good and sufficient amount in his bank.orderr.s. garg, j.1. heard.2. the grievance of the present applicant appears to be that the amount of interim compensation has not been paid in full. 80% of the same has been deposited in the bank. according to the applicant, he has number of liabilities to meet and he needs money for his treatment. the entire amount must be paid to him.3. number of authorities and the earlier judgment of this court show that the amount of the interim compensation is always paid to the person so that he can run his life smoothly meet the expenses and is not required to beg from others though having good and sufficient amount in his bank. the submissions of the learned counsel that the applicant is required to meet certain exigencies and needs money for his further treatment cannot be said to be absolutelyperverse or irrational. even otherwise, judgment of the supreme court in matter of general manager, kerala state road transport corpn. v. susamma thomas and others (1994 acj 1) is in relation to the final disbursement of the amount and does not relate to the interim compensation. as the respondents are not interested in the disbursement of the amount and the manner in which it is to be disbursed, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other side. the petition is allowed. the entire amount deposited by the respondents be paid to the petitioner. c.c. today.4. civil revision allowed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.S. Garg, J.

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the present applicant appears to be that the amount of interim compensation has not been paid in full. 80% of the same has been deposited in the Bank. According to the applicant, he has number of liabilities to meet and he needs money for his treatment. The entire amount must be paid to him.

3. Number of authorities and the earlier judgment of this Court show that the amount of the interim compensation is always paid to the person so that he can run his life smoothly meet the expenses and is not required to beg from others though having good and sufficient amount in his Bank. The submissions of the learned counsel that the applicant is required to meet certain exigencies and needs money for his further treatment cannot be said to be absolutelyperverse or irrational. Even otherwise, judgment of the Supreme Court in matter of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas and others (1994 ACJ 1) is in relation to the final disbursement of the amount and does not relate to the interim compensation. As the respondents are not interested in the disbursement of the amount and the manner in which it is to be disbursed, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other side. The petition is allowed. The entire amount deposited by the respondents be paid to the petitioner. C.C. Today.

4. Civil Revision allowed.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2001 Same Parties Bharatram vs Abul Murad and Others Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Mr. R.S. Garg, J.

Motor Vehicles